Does Your Covers Band Change Songs? What Changes and Why?

[Sean]

My current covers band and previous covers band made changes to songs that I don't really understand and I don't know the origins of. I'm not talking key changes or replacing a sax solo with a guitar part,  I'm talking about structural changes. These changes include chord sequence changes, complete rewrites of sections, changing the way a song ends, changing the intro, etc

 

Now, these aren't avant guarde bands,  or artists doing reinterpretations. They're pub/club/function/festival covers bands. Some of it is so subtle it hardly seems worth it, some of it is just plain wrong, some of it seems like someone was just trying to be creative and add their own twist. I'm yet to come across one that is either an improvement or that is easier to reproduce than what is on the original. 

 

This must be a more common occurrence than I previously thought. I can't really remember dealing with it in the past. What's your experience of this sort of thing? 

 

A few I've experienced recently to get the ball rolling:

 

1. Mr Blue Sky (reprise at the end). Instead of 12 bars of Db then C then B etc there's a completely different ending that uses G A Bb with a riff.

2. Long Train Running. It goes G///|G///|Eb///|Eb/D/| at the end of the verses instead of G///|G///|Eb///|D///| I have to concentrate to not play it like the Doobies.

3. Message in a Bottle. Has a different ending that you'd never guess. 

4. Other songs: the chord sequence for the guitar solo is simplified. I see some logic but knowing the skills of the guitarists, I just can't see why they needed it simplifying. 

5. Summer of '69. After the guitar intro the band comes in on the A not the D.

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Sean

[tauzero]

Dirty Roses:

 

Summer of 69. Not an intentional structure change, it's just that despite us having done it for several years, the drummer still can't sort out a fill for the end of the middle 8. TBH, we really ought to drop it.

Tainted Love. Just an ending that works for us.

Twist and Shout/La Bamba. We just do it as a medley at the end of the night, it's generally fairly random where we switch from one to the other and where the lead breaks come.

Paranoid. No structure change, it's just that I think I only play about 90% of the notes because my fingers don't work fast enough. I'd love to drop it.

I think that's it.

 

Bonnevilles:

 

Born on the Bayou. Not sure if we've done a structure change or not, haven't listened to the original since we rehearsed it earlier and worked out what we would do.

 

Off the top of my head, that's it.

 

It's not just cover bands who change structures, if you have a listen to the original "Don't you forget about me" off Glittering Prize and compare it to the live version on Live in the City of Light, there's quite a major restructure. And then try and find a Youtube video where Simple Minds play it the same as they do on that live album, rather than yet another way.

 

And I really don't know why it happens. I know the guitarist in the Bonnevilles has commented on how I play Sweet Child O' Mine because I play it as per record with the correct hold of two bars on the A at the end of the Em C B A bit, as does everyone else I've played it with, but another band that he plays with does it some different length (stuff that, I'm playing it the right length!). So once a mistake has established itself, it's often difficult to extract it.

[uk_lefty]

There are some intros and endings we simplify or remove entirely because they might rely on a piano riff or something studio trickery but none of the shenanigans you mention in the op. That does seem quite odd and energy that could be spent on learning whole new songs.

[Sean]

23 minutes ago, uk_lefty said:

There are some intros and endings we simplify or remove entirely because they might rely on a piano riff 

We drop the 30 second organ intro to Faith but otherwise it's exactly like the record. 

[MacDaddy]

I'm not averse to changing bass lines if I can come up with something better than the coked-up indie halfwit who played on the original.

[Lozz196]

In my old punk covers band The Daves we were sure we played everything correctly, until we needed a new drummer. The new guy learned the songs correctly and we found a good few we played differently, with no ideas as to why the changes had been made. Maybe this happens in other bands as well?

Edited 5 hours ago by Lozz196

[Dan Dare]

Depends on whether we think a change is needed or even whether, in our humble opinion, a change improves a song. The average pop song is not a work of great literature. It isn't sacrosanct. If changing it in some way improves it for your purposes, go for it.

[chris_b]

I've played in many bands where the band leader hadn't bothered to learn the song properly. Trying to get them to change just causes grief, so I shrug my shoulders and play their version.

 

I played with one idiot who couldn't get the arrangements right from one gig to the next! Several times his " impromptu changes" caught me out and it was very annoying to be told that I needed to learn the songs!! Apart from him it was a good band, with good songs and good players, so I stuck it out.

 

In cover bands I prefer to be playing the original because IME they never rehearse, so it's better that everyone sits at home learning the original arrangement and it's easier for deps to seamlessly fit in.

[steantval]

3 hours ago, MacDaddy said:

I'm not averse to changing bass lines if I can come up with something better than the coked-up indie halfwit who played on the original.

Luckily I don’t have that issue, songs by coked up indie halfwits wouldn’t get a look in on our set lists.

[Marvin]

There are a few in my current bands set list that have been tampered with, some more than others.

 

As @chris_b says, I think it's best to stick to the original arrangement. The ones that have been adjusted have caused problems for our new guitarist, especially as we haven't particularly good recordings of us playing them. Things would have been a lot quicker if we'd just stuck to an agreed original template.

[SumOne]

We sometimes change stuff quite a lot, e.g. making a ska or reggae version of an existing song. Other things we just change a bit as at one point in time perhaps we kept messing up a part and simplified it, or didn't have the right instruments, or just didn't sound good when we played it - or certain bits sounded good so we extended them. There are a few songs we pretty much cover note for note, that makes it easy for practise at home and for deps but I think they are the most boring songs to play (and perhaps most boring for the audience too) with zero creative input,  might as well have a DJ if the aim is to sound exactly like the original.

[EliasMooseblaster]

13 hours ago, Sean said:

My current covers band and previous covers band made changes to songs that I don't really understand and I don't know the origins of. I'm not talking key changes or replacing a sax solo with a guitar part,  I'm talking about structural changes. These changes include chord sequence changes, complete rewrites of sections, changing the way a song ends, changing the intro, etc

 

I can understand changes made for practical purposes - maybe even little surprises like an extra chorus on the end, or a double-time section to wake the crowd up - but some of the examples you've given are just a bit...weird. 

 

Not to gloat, but when I've been in covers bands, they've typically clung quite faithfully to what was on the record. The biggest change I can remember making was coming up with an ending for Deep Purple's Black Night, because, as much as I love them, Deep Purple never seemed to know how to end a song!

Edited 3 hours ago by EliasMooseblaster

[Sean]

2 hours ago, chris_b said:

I've played in many bands where the band leader hadn't bothered to learn the song properly. Trying to get them to change just causes grief, so I shrug my shoulders and play their version.

 

I played with one idiot who couldn't get the arrangements right from one gig to the next! Several times his " impromptu changes" caught me out and it was very annoying to be told that I needed to learn the songs!! Apart from him it was a good band, with good songs and good players, so I stuck it out.

 

In cover bands I prefer to be playing the original because IME they never rehearse, so it's better that everyone sits at home learning the original arrangement and it's easier for deps to seamlessly fit in.

That post applies to pretty much exactly my situation in a previous band. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sean

[Sean]

I'm currently getting my head around playing "those sections" of Times Like These in 4/4 time instead of 7/4. I can see the logic in making the decision but it's not difficult to count 3 / 4 then 4/4 to get to 7.  That one is a lazy shortcut and and is now 15 years ingrained into 4 people so I'm "re-learning" it. 

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

8 minutes ago, Sean said:

I'm currently getting my head around playing "those sections" of Times Like These in 4/4 time instead of 7/4. I can see the logic in making the decision but it's not difficult to count 3 / 4 then 4/4 to get to 7.  That one is a lazy shortcut and and is now 15 years ingrained into 4 people so I'm "re-learning" it. 

That is crazy. It's the bit that makes a relatively boring bass line interesting and they've screwed it.

I would be having words.

[Sean]

1 minute ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

That is crazy. It's the bit that makes a relatively boring bass line interesting and they've screwed it.

I would be having words.

I'm the newbie and there's quite a few things above that on the list of things to be having chats about that will refine the set. Things are really positive and moving forward, I need to be selective and focus. 

[Sean]

One thing I've done as a result of all this is to chart out the songs as the band plays them with notes to explain.

 

One day they might need a dep or a replacement and having this reference material is going to save some bassist a lot of time. It could well be a fellow Basschatter.

 

You're welcome. 😀

[bassbiscuits]

Depends on the reasons I suppose. 
 

The tribute band and the function band I play with stick closely to the originals for obvious reasons; a few are in different keys, but arrangements and other important details stay the same. 
 

In the other hand, my solo work and my blues/soul trio are full of “interpretations” of songs which have been rearranged and rejigged into something that works best for us in those formats. 
 

That’s not the same as being too lazy to learn parts, or being incapable of playing them properly. That’s just freedom to experiment (with the caveat of them actually sounding good!). 
 

But yeah oversimplifying or messing with songs for no good reason seems a bit daft. 

 

 

[Obrienp]

We do key changes and then detune a semitone for most songs to suit the singers. It can make it quite difficult to reproduce the original bass lines on a 4 string in some cases. That said we are not trying to be a tribute act, so I don't always stick exactly to the bass line unless it's a really integral part of the song. It would be hard to recognise, e.g: How Long, Keep on Running, I Gotta Get Out of This Place, if you didn't play the original bass line. We also have a lead guitarist who is obsessed with tempo, so we end up playing everything around 10 beats faster than the original. He accelerates during the set as well. Its pretty impressive that he manages to get the solos for Sultans of Swing and Come Up and See Me right, while playing them significantly faster than the originals, Lol!

 

I saw a band locally where the bassist didn't play the original bass line to How Long, in fact the only thing that was the same were the words. It took me most of the song to realise what they were paying. Personally I think that is a step too far. There is room for interpretation but fundamentally changing a song seems either wrong, or lazy.